- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 09:54:30 +0100
- To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Frank Manola" <fmanola@mitre.org>
- Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Frank: > > I can't think of a better way to insure > > that what people think RDF is (including both RDF/XML and Schema) is > > what's described in the Primer than to make all the normative specs > > "bare-bones normative" (and hence virtually unreadable). The specs > > people can read tend to become "normative" by usage. Jeremy: > Very well-argued. I wrote that a couple of days ago, I guess it got held up on my PC. On reflection, I feel this is a good argument to make the primer correct, which I think we wanted to do anyway. It does not matter at all if people don't have examples of how to use bagID because its useless. All the rdf:parseType's are there for other specs to and implementations to build on - apart from "Literal" which I hope the primer will treat a little. If the primer doesn't mention property attributes, and then no one uses them, that won't be a huge lose to humanity. Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 31 October 2002 03:54:32 UTC